Care to give a specific example?

And here I thought Objectivism was supposed to be an ideology of free thinking and individualism. Guess I was mistaken. Apparently Ayn Rand's practice of demanding conformity and expelling anyone who didn't bow down to the ideology of the Objectivst collective carries over to her followers as well...

The title is only oxymoronic to fools who have bought into the lie that religion is the source of morality.

All groups feel that the individual must be subjected to the collective. That has nothing to do with either Liberalism or Conservatism, as they BOTH use the law as a means of accomplishing that end. Collectivism is simply the inherent nature of all groups. It's called group think. And yes, Objectivists are included in that.

How do you know it isn't in the data? Have you seen the data?

No, I mean anybody who's observed the behavior of Berkly and its denizens and alumni.

Just like people have forgotten the little tidbit of history that the Bolshevik's crushed the Menshavik's, ultimately resulting in Stalin's supremacy.

Hitler's philosophy the opposite of Stalin's? Not at all. They BOTH felt the individual must be subjugated to the collective. Same philosophy. Note the wording; "must be subjugated".

Again, you keep trying to conflate the classic definition of "liberal" with the modern usage of "liberal". In current usage, "liberal" is synonymous with "leftist".

And, no, leftists require individuals submit and follow the collective; conservatives require individuals to obey The Law, which is a foundational document designed to protect the rights of the individual. Not the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFI...

Objectivists don't require members to submit and follow, merely requires the individual to respect the rights of others *or they are not Objectivist*. Note the lack of coercion.

Wow, even the title is oxymoronic.
I understand atheism. YOU don't understand conservatism.

" coupled with the mandate priests be celibate,"

Please elaborate? How does celibacy turn one into a homosexual child predator?

Of course a personally reasonable atheist cannot be; he rejects the supremacy of God altogether; there's no "saving" to be done for an atheist.
Edit to add: In some religious philosophies, as I understand it, atheists are neither condemned nor saved, but enter "limbo", an indeterminate state. (and a "born-again atheist" would be contradictory).

I did *not* just Objectivism to justify immoral behavior, if you're referring to the statement that got me sent to Coventry. I tried demonstrating that Objectivist philosophy *can be used* to justify immoral behavior. (and NAMBLA is of the collective opinion that pedophilia isn't immoral, which goes to my point that without a foundation of morality, leftists can justify *any* behavior that makes them as individuals happy, without any framework to regulate their behavior).

Automatically dismissing well researched information as supposedly being "nonsense" simply because you don't like the conclusions? Doesn't seem like a particularly rational or objective position to take, if you ask me.